DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting of The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting of The SAN MATEO COUNTY 650.712.7765 | PHONE 650.726.0494 | FAX 625 Miramontes Street, Suite 103, Half Moon Bay, CA 9 4019 www.sanmateorcd.org Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors May 19, 2011 Time 6:30-8:30 Location: RCD Office Directors present: TJ Glauthier, Roxy Stone, Jim Reynolds Staff present: RCD- Kellyx Nelson, Renee Moldovan, Karissa Anderson, Alyssa Hernandez (AmeriCorps intern) NRCS-Jim Howard Guests: Susie Bennett (GGNRA), Ron Sturgeon 1 Call to Order • Glauthier called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. 2 Introduction of Guests, Committee, and Staff. 3 Public Comment. • No public comments 4 Approval of Agenda • Reynolds moved to approve and Stone seconded. Agenda approved unanimously. 5 Consent Agenda • Reynolds moved to approve and Stone seconded. Consent agenda approved unanimously. 6 Discussion Items • 6.1 Executive Director Report (Nelson) • Pillar Point Harbor Study- Reviewed the purpose, history, and components of the grant- funded project. There is chronic poor water quality in the harbor in terms of fecal indicator bacteria (FIB). The RCD received grant funds to identify the sources of contamination and develop strategies for remediation. The study includes enumeration of FIB, microbial source tracking (MST), a circulation study of the harbor, and terrestrial hydrology. o Will be presenting Circulation Study at Harbor Commission on June 1st – Army Corps will be interested in results because of sand supply issue at Surfer’s Beach. o Glauthier was interested in public outreach and informing the Board about progress and what the preliminary findings show. o Final deliverable will be a plan for remediation – solutions will differ based on what data indicate are the source or sources. • Rural Roads Program- Roads have been identified as a priority in Steelhead and Coho recovery plans because of fine sediment damaging spawning habitat. Had our second annual workshop for land owners and land managers last weekend. The workshop was at Pie Ranch. Jim Kjelgaard spoke about road issues and treatments. Vincent Hurley, an attorney, spoke about erosion law and liability. The afternoon included a field site visit to Bear Gulch Road Association project site with DFG leading the walk. o Selection committee chose 6 projects to receive road assessment and designs, to be completed by NRCS (Jim Kjelgaard) and private contractors. o Pilarcitos contracts are moving forward, will have covered large portion of the watershed when we are done. o We applied for FRGP funds to start implementing treatments and are approaching a tenant on one of the properties to implement the designed improvements. • Water Quality Monitoring Successes- Two times recently we have had success with landowners who have had RCD doing monitoring. In the San Pedro Creek watershed, our monitoring found high counts of bacteria that turned out to be a leaking septic tank, which the landowner repaired. Another was in the Critical Coastal Area, where RCD staff recommended changes in drainage due to spikes in bacteria. The landowner made them and water quality improved right away. o Glauthier asked if we have revisited the site on Frenchman’s Creek where we did fish passage project. Nelson and Howard have revisited the site, and discussed that it looks stable, is withstanding storms, they have had conversations with fish biologists about whether or not it is quality fish passage for all life stages. Weeds are a problem. o There was a general discussion about the lack of funds to monitor projects other than verifying that the structures are in place, i.e. what the fish are actually doing. Bennett suggested that GGNRA might partner with the RCD for their interns to assist with assessments. • Upcoming events and contracts- o Applying for NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant for biochar field trials. o In negotiation with Caltrans for Cloverdale ponds restoration project. Agreement will come before the Board for review. o NRCS has done GIS mapping of ponds for our area. RCD and NRCS will do some analysis to inventory, assess, and prioritize pond projects. o Another agreement will be a County contract through Prop 84 for Fitzgerald Marine Reserve non-point pollution reduction that will subcontract to RCD through an MOU. o Nelson and Anderson will present about the RCD’s water quality program at the upcoming Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Committee meeting. o Nelson and Anderson will present at the San Mateo County Harbor Commission meeting on June 1st. o Nelson has asked CARCD to convene a conference call with RCD’s to develop strategies and guidance for how to proceed with the labor compliance issues that are developing in state funding contracts. o Anderson invited Board members to come out and assist with Pillar Point Harbor sampling. • 6.2 NRCS Report (Howard) • RCD and NRCS used up the CCPI pot of money for irrigation efficiency with Tim Frahm’s help. • Lots of RCD projects are starting to roll with NRCS since with Nelson’s return from maternity leave. • NRCS is limited in what they can do outside of Farm Bill, but Nelson and Howard met with State Conservationist. Howard has continued to get feedback that our Local Partnership Office was one of the highlights of his California tour and he was impressed with NRCS- RCD partnership. • Howard feels confident and secure now allocating energy and resources to RCD projects and programs for technical assistance and conservation planning. • 6.3 FY 2012 Budget (Moldovan) • Staff is in the process of preparing the FY 2012 budget. • Question for Board – do you want to have a special meeting in June for approval before FY ‘012 begins or have it be late? • Directors chose a date for a special meeting: June 29th, at 4PM. • 6.4 San Mateo County RCD Five Year Plan (Nelson) • Nelson shared a draft of a five year plan (attached) that is based on Local Workgroup priorities. She asked directors for feedback and whether any of them wished to be involved in developing the plan outside of Board meetings. • The Board and staff discussed the value of one on one conversations with landowners and their thoughts as well as measurement metrics, e.g. reduced beach closure days. • 6.5 Biochar Trials in Coastal San Mateo County (Anderson) • Anderson presented the attached PowerPoint and reviewed the developing project with Board members and guests, answered questions about sourcing Biochar, possible benefits other than soil amendments, etc. • The group discussed what was and wasn’t in the scope of project. 7 Adjourn - • Glauthier motioned to adjourn, Reynolds seconded. Meeting adjourned at 8:15. 650.726.0494 | FAX 625 Miramontes Street, Suite 103, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 www.sanmateorcd.org 2010-2015 Plan The San Mateo County Resource Conservation District is a non-regulatory special district to help people protect, conserve, and restore natural resources through information, education, technical assistance programs, and the implementation of conservation projects. Priority Geographic Areas The following geographic areas in coastal San Mateo County, ordered from north to south, are conservation priorities for the RCD but do not exclude development, implementation, or delivery of valuable programs, projects, or technical assistance in other geographic areas served by the RCD. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Critical Coastal Area Pilarcitos Creek Watershed San Gregorio Creek Watershed Pescadero-Butano Creeks Watershed Gazos Creek Watershed Conservation Goal Objectives Water Quality Develop plans and implement practices to reduce point or non-point source pollution that is known Improve, protect, and enhance water quality to impair surface or subsurface water resources in coastal San Mateo County. (i.e., pesticides, nutrients, sediment, and pathogens). Monitor parameters that may impair chemical, physical, or biological aspects of water quality to identify nonpoint source (NPS) contaminants and establish baseline monitoring data. In partnership with NRCS and others, provide technical assistance for land owners and land managers to implement Best Management Practices. Water Quantity Develop plans and implement practices to diversify alternative sources of water to facilitate Improve and protect water availability by the wise use of water supply for the management improving instream flow and groundwater of all beneficial uses. management. Develop plans and implement Practices that promote more efficient distribution, application, and management of water. In partnership with NRCS and others, provide technical assistance for land owners and land managers to implement Best Management Practices. Barriers to Project Pursue permit streamlining opportunities. Implementation Facilitate cooperation and improve efficiencies in watershed stewardship among diverse Reduce barriers to implementation of high stakeholders. value conservation projects. Utilize IWRP to coordinate agencies that provide technical assistance, permits, and funds to facilitate project implementation and resolve technical or other issues that might otherwise be barriers to project implementation. Ecosystem Management Develop and implement practices that: Improve, protect, and enhance ecosystem o protect or improve wildlife habitat and function and productivity and reduce risks of promote biodiversity and ecosystem function. natural hazards. o promote ecosystem function through removal and control of invasive exotic plant species. o increase the productivity and health of grasslands and coastal scrub/chaparral communities. o increase the productivity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Planning and Natural Resources Committee R-19
    PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE R-19-140 October 22, 2019 AGENDA ITEM 2 AGENDA ITEM Addendum to the Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan to Expand Conservation Grazing into the South Pasture GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Forward a recommendation to the Board of Directors to adopt an addendum to the Mindego Hill Ranch Grazing Management Plan as an amendment to the Russian Ridge Use and Management Plan that adds the south pasture as part of the conservation grazing area on the property. SUMMARY The General Manager recommends adoption of an addendum to the Mindego Hill Ranch (Mindego) Grazing Management Plan (Grazing Plan) (Attachment 1) to expand the conservation grazing area within Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (Russian Ridge). The addendum identifies the existing resources and current uses in the proposed south pasture expansion area, and provides recommendations for future improvements, management, and monitoring at the site. The recommendations include: installation of additional water infrastructure, updates to fencing, management of brush encroachment into grasslands, and monitoring of resource management activities. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) staff and the current grazing tenant have been working with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to secure cost-sharing support for the anticipated improvements. Implementation of the recommended infrastructure improvements is estimated to cost $119,341, of which approximately $85,000 is projected to be the District’s share with the remainder funded by the NRCS. Recommended improvements would span four years with work anticipated to begin in July 2020. If approved, the District’s share would be allocated across the next four fiscal years and requested as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan development process.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • Central Coast
    Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Action Area ..................................................................................................................... 32 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ......................................................................................................... 34 2.1 Analytical Approach ....................................................................................................... 34 2.2 Life History and Range-wide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ...................... 35 2.3 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................. 48 2.4 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................ 62 2.5 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................... 76 2.6 Integration and Synthesis ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County BBE Final Report-2016.11.2
    Assessment and Management Prioritization Regime for the Bar-built Estuaries of San Mateo County Summary Report San Pedro Creek Prepared for: United States Fish and Wildlife Service San Francisco Area Coastal Program by: Central Coast Wetlands Group Moss Landing Marine Labs 8272 Moss Landing Rd. Moss Landing, CA 95039 November 2016 Summary Report: Bar-Built Estuaries of San Mateo County TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Figures and Tables .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Background and Need .................................................................................................................................... 3 What are BBEs and Why are they Important ............................................................................................................ 3 BBE are the most dominant estuarine resource on the San Mateo County coastline .............................................. 4 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Methods .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Site Selection ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • POS538-Landscapes C5 8/16/10 4:57 PM Page 1
    POS538-Landscapes c5 8/16/10 4:57 PM Page 1 PENINSULA OPEN SPACE TRUST Landscapes FALL 2010 POS538-Landscapes c5 8/16/10 4:57 PM Page 2 Going with the Flow: Watershed Protection on POST Lands “To put your hands in a river is to feel the chords that bind the earth together.” — BARRY LOPEZ 2 ■ landscapes POS538-Landscapes c5 8/16/10 4:57 PM Page 3 Water defines us. It’s the reason we call our region the WBay Area. It shapes the Peninsula and sculpts the land. It cleans the air. It comes down from the sky as rain and fog, and comes up from the earth via springs and aquifers. It makes up more than 70 percent of most living things. Beach Bubbles © 2003 Dan Quinn Land carries the water, but water makes the land come alive, coursing through the earth and giving it health and vitality. Watershed protection has long been a priority at POST, and by helping us save open space, you preserve the natural systems found there, including critical water resources that nourish and sustain us. Connecting Land and Water There are 16 major watersheds in the 63,000 acres POST has saved since its founding in 1977. These watersheds supplement our Contents sources of drinking water, support native wildlife habitat, provide 14–5 Watershed Map places of recreation and help us grow food close to home. 16 Spotlight: Saving land surrounding vulnerable waterways is the first step San Gregorio Watershed to ensuring the quality of our water. When it flows over land, water picks up things along the way, including nutrients, sediment and 17 A Water Droplet’s Point of View pollutants.
    [Show full text]
  • Portolá Trail and Development of Foster City Our Vision Table of Contents to Discover the Past and Imagine the Future
    Winter 2014-2015 LaThe Journal of the SanPeninsula Mateo County Historical Association, Volume xliii, No. 1 Portolá Trail and Development of Foster City Our Vision Table of Contents To discover the past and imagine the future. Is it Time for a Portolá Trail Designation in San Mateo County? ....................... 3 by Paul O. Reimer, P.E. Our Mission Development of Foster City: A Photo Essay .................................................... 15 To enrich, excite and by T. Jack Foster, Jr. educate through understanding, preserving The San Mateo County Historical Association Board of Directors and interpreting the history Paul Barulich, Chairman; Barbara Pierce, Vice Chairwoman; Shawn DeLuna, Secretary; of San Mateo County. Dee Tolles, Treasurer; Thomas Ames; Alpio Barbara; Keith Bautista; Sandra McLellan Behling; John Blake; Elaine Breeze; David Canepa; Tracy De Leuw; Dee Eva; Ted Everett; Accredited Pat Hawkins; Mark Jamison; Peggy Bort Jones; Doug Keyston; John LaTorra; Joan by the American Alliance Levy; Emmet W. MacCorkle; Karen S. McCown; Nick Marikian; Olivia Garcia Martinez; Gene Mullin; Bob Oyster; Patrick Ryan; Paul Shepherd; John Shroyer; Bill Stronck; of Museums. Joseph Welch III; Shawn White and Mitchell P. Postel, President. President’s Advisory Board Albert A. Acena; Arthur H. Bredenbeck; John Clinton; Robert M. Desky; T. Jack Foster, The San Mateo County Jr.; Umang Gupta; Greg Munks; Phill Raiser; Cynthia L. Schreurs and John Schrup. Historical Association Leadership Council operates the San Mateo John C. Adams, Wells Fargo; Jenny Johnson, Franklin Templeton Investments; Barry County History Museum Jolette, San Mateo Credit Union and Paul Shepherd, Cargill. and Archives at the old San Mateo County Courthouse La Peninsula located in Redwood City, Carmen J.
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of San Mateo County San Pedro San Pedro Creek flows northwesterly, entering the Pacific Ocean at Pacifica State Beach. It drains a watershed about eight square miles in area. The upper portions of the drainage contain springs (feeding the south and middle forks) that produce perennial flow in the creek. Documents with information regarding steelhead in the San Pedro Creek watershed may refer to the North Fork San Pedro Creek and the Sanchez Fork. For purposes of this report, these tributaries are considered as part of the mainstem. A 1912 letter regarding San Mateo County streams indicates that San Pedro Creek was stocked. A fishway also is noted on the creek (Smith 1912). Titus et al. (in prep.) note DFG records of steelhead spawning in the creek in 1941. In 1968, DFG staff estimated that the San Pedro Creek steelhead run consisted of 100 individuals (Wood 1968). A 1973 stream survey report notes, “Spawning habitat is a limiting factor for steelhead” (DFG 1973a, p. 2). The report called the steelhead resources of San Pedro Creek “viable and important” but cited passage at culverts, summer water diversion, and urbanization effects on the stream channel and watershed hydrology as placing “the long-term survival of the steelhead resource in question”(DFG 1973a, p. 5). The lower portions of San Pedro Creek were surveyed during the spring and summer of 1989. Three O. mykiss year classes were observed during the study throughout the lower creek. Researchers noticed “a marked exodus from the lower creek during the late summer” of yearling and age 2+ individuals, many of which showed “typical smolt characteristics” (Sullivan 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • SAN GREGORIO CREEK STREAM SYSTEM ) 12 ) in San Mateo County, California ) 13 ------) 14
    (ENDORSED) 1 WILLIAM R. ATTWATER, Chief Counsel ANDREW H. SAWYER, Assistant Chief Counsel 2 M. G. TAYLOR, III, Senior Staff Counsel FILED • BARBARA A. KATZ, Staff Counsel JAN 2 9 1993 3 901 P Street WARREN SLOCUM, County C!cri( Sacramento, California 95814 j:,\!l;.l"'if' ",.,;;."""" ''­ :':y , J:.;i";J 1 "~1."""....ii, ..': .. ;• .'.~ 4 Telephone: (916) 657 -209 7 • C'EPu;Y C~:~~~~ 5 Attorneys for the State Water Resources Control Board 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 In the Matter of the ) No. 355792 Determination of the Rights of ) 10 the various Claimants to the ) DECREE Water of ) 11 ) SAN GREGORIO CREEK STREAM SYSTEM ) 12 ) in San Mateo County, California ) 13 ------------------------------) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 • 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................. i . , , 4 INDEX OF CLAIMANTS ........................................... iii " 5 Defini tions ............................................. 2 6 State Water Resources Control Board Map ................. 4 7 General. Entitlement ..................................... 4 8 Priori ty of Rights ...................................... 5 9 Post-1914 Appropriations ................................ 6 10 Seasons of Use .......................................... 7 11 Domestic Use ............................................ 7 12 S tockwa tering Use ....................................... 7 13 Irrigation Use .......................................... 8 14 Domestic and Stockwatering Uses During
    [Show full text]
  • North Coast Anadromous Creeks Snorkel Fish Counts and Habitat Survey 2019 Data Summary
    North Coast Anadromous Creeks Snorkel Fish Counts and Habitat Survey 2019 Data Summary Prepared by: City of Santa Cruz Water Department June 2020 Please cite as follows: Berry, C., Bean, E., Bassett, R., Retford, N., Sedoryk, M., and Hagar, J. 2020. North Coast Anadromous Creeks Snorkel Fish Counts and Habitat Survey 2019 Data Summary. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Water Department. Santa Cruz, CA. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 7 SITE DESCRIPTIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 7 LAGUNA CREEK .................................................................................................................................................... 7 LIDDELL CREEK .................................................................................................................................................... 8 MAJORS CREEK ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 METHODS .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 13-016 Draft 90% Design Memo 11-15-18 Final
    APPENDIX A Fish Passage Design Flow Calculations Project: Permanente Quarry Project #: 13-016 Date: 8/29/2017 Calculated by: M.L.B/B.R.S. Checked by: B.M.Z. Exceedence Probability Values for Mean Daily Flows at USGS Gages Near Cupertino Annual Exceedance Discharge (cfs) Gage #11166575 Gage #11166578 Gage #11169500 Gage #11164500 Gage #11166000 Permanente Creek West Fork Permanente Creek Saratoga Creek San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Percent Exceedence Normalized Normalized Real Flows Real Flows Normalized Flows Normalized Flows Real Flows Normalized Flows Flows Real Flows (cfs) Real Flows (cfs) Flows (cfs) (cfs) (cfs/sq.mi.) (cfs/sq.mi.) (cfs) (cfs/sq.mi.) (cfs/sq.mi.) (cfs/sq.mi.) 95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.04 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.05 0.29 0.01 0.00 0.00 10 4.00 1.04 0.82 0.27 18.00 1.95 45.00 1.20 3.50 0.48 5 7.30 1.89 3.49 1.17 38.80 4.21 112.75 3.01 9.90 1.36 Gage #11166575 Gage #11166578 Gage #11169500 Gage #11164500 Gage #11164500 Drainage Area (sq.mi.) 3.86 2.98 9.22 37.4 7.26 Drainage Record Length Normalized Exceedance Flows Site Name Location Area (mi2) (yrs) 95% (cfs/mi2) 90% (cfs/mi2) 10% (cfs/mi2) 5% (cfs/mi2) PERMANENTE C NR MONTE VISTA CA - 11166575 37°20'00" 122°05'13" 3.86 3 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.89 WF PERMANENTE C NR MONTE VISTA CA - 11166578 37°19'59" 122°05'58" 2.98 3 0.00 0.00 0.27 1.17 SARATOGA C A SARATOGA CA - 11169500 1 37°15'16" 122°02'18" 9.22 20 0.04 0.05 1.95 4.21 SAN FRANCISQUITO C A STANFORD UNIVERSITY CA - 11164500 2 37°25'24" 122°11'18" 37.4 20 0.00 0.01 1.20 3.01 MATADERO CREEK A PALO ALTO CA 11166000 3 37°25'18" 122°08'04" 7.26 65 0.00 0.00 0.48 1.36 1 Water is diverted 0.7 miles upstream of gage for municipal use by San Jose Water Works Average = 0.01 0.01 0.99 2.33 2 Flow Slightly regulated by Searsville Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Item2 Preface Exsummary Final.Pdf
    A report submitted to Caltrans Contract No. 04A0400-A01 Task Order No. 02-01 Caltrans Project Coordinators: David W. Yam, Senior Landscape Architect, No. 1949 and Dragomir Bogdanic, P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer. San Francisco Estuary Institute: Lester McKee, PhD – Hydrology/Water Quality Sarah Pearce, MS - Geology/Geomorphology Chuck Striplen, BA – Biology/Environmental Studies 7770 Pardee Lane, 2nd Floor, Oakland, CA 94621 (510) 746-7334 Fax (510) 746-7300 http://www.sfei.org California State University, Fresno Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences: Roland Brady, PhD - Professor of Engineering Geology; CA Registered Geologist #5121 Shay Overton, BS - Geology 2345 E. San Ramon Ave. M/S MH 24 Fresno, CA 93740-8031 (559) 278-2391 Fax (559) 278-5980 email [email protected] The San Gregorio Environmental Resource Center: PO Box 49 San Gregorio, CA 94074 (650) 726-2499 This report should be referenced as: Brady, R. H. III, S. Pearce, L. McKee, S. Overton, and C. Striplen, 2004. Fluvial geomorphology, hydrology, and riparian habitat of La Honda Creek along the Highway 84 transportation corridor, San Mateo County, California. A technical report of the Watershed Program, San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), Oakland, California. SFEI contribution no. 78. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and council of the following persons and organizations: Kris Vyverberg – Engineering Geologist, California Department of Fish and Game Glenn DeCou – Chief, Office of State Highway Drainage Design, Caltrans
    [Show full text]
  • The Geology from Santa Cruz to Point Año Nuevo
    Field Trip 1The Geology from Santa Cruz to Point Año Nuevo—The San Gregorio Fault Zone and Pleistocene Marine Terraces The Geology from Santa Cruz to Point Año Nuevo— The San Gregorio Fault Zone and Pleistocene Marine Terraces Gerald E. Weber University of California, Santa Cruz, Calif. Alan O. Allwardt Geologic Consultant, Santa Cruz, Calif. Introduction On this field trip, we will illustrate two aspects of the tectonic unrest along the coastline between Santa Cruz and Point Año Nuevo: (1) late Quaternary activity in the San Gregorio Fault Zone at Año Nuevo State Reserve and (2) Pleistocene marine terraces in the vicinity of Wilder Ranch State Park, formed in response to regional uplift and fluctuat- ing sea level. Among the topics of discussion will be rates of soil development on the terrace surfaces, techniques for dating terrace sequences and determining rates of uplift, and problems in using offset Pleistocene strandlines to estimate slip rates across the fault zone. Our goal in scheduling only two field trip stops is to maximize the time spent outside the bus. For much of the day we will be walking and examining outcrops on State Parks land, where sample collecting is prohibited. However, the quality of the exposures will more than compensate for this handicap. Time permitting, we may also visit some of the optional field-trip stops described in the road log, which will provide additional background on the geology and cultural history of this stretch of coastline. The San Gregorio Fault Zone (SGFZ) is the principal fault west of the San Andreas Fault Zone (SAFZ) in central California and is part of the larger San Andreas Fault system, representing the active tectonic boundary between the Pacific and North American lithospheric plates (fig.
    [Show full text]